Dependency Structure of Binary Conjunctions

(of the IF…, THEN… Type)

Igor Mel’čuk University of Montreal

Department of Linguistics and Translation Observatoire de linguistique Sens-Texte

Canada igor.melcuk@umontreal.ca

Abstract

The dependency surface-syntactic structure is proposed, within the Meaning-Text framework, for binary conjunctions of the IF–THEN type; e.g.:

IF→Y, THEN←X A universal typology of conjunctions is sketched, and three examples of English binary conjunctions are given. Binary conjunctions are “discontinuous” phrasemes-idioms, collocations and formulemes that have to be considered together with their actants, since there are no direct syntactic links between their components. Full lexical entries for two Russian binary conjunctions are presented, supplied with linguistic comments, and deep-syntactic rules ensuring the expansion of a deep-syntactic binary conjunction node into the corresponding surface-syntactic tree are illustrated.

1 The Syntactic Structure of a Binary Conjunction

This paper examines subordinating and coordi-nating binary conjunctions (or correlative sub-ordinators/coordinators, as they are known in the literature: Quirk et al. 1991: 935–941, 999–1001). The typical examples are the subordin-ating conjunction IF…, THEN… and the coordin-ating conjunction EITHER…, OR… The discus-sion is carried out within the Meaning-Text approach (see Mel’čuk 1974, 2012, 2016b).

In sentence (1) dependency relations between lexemes are obvious, except for THEN, the second component of the conjunction IF…, THEN…:

(1) If A→and→B are→equal, then B←follows→C.

The dependency for THEN is proposed in what follows.

Without THEN the superordinate clause can linearly precede or follow the subordinate clause with IF; but with THEN it can only follow. This gives the idea to make this THEN dependent on IF: IF–r→THEN; as a result, the binary conjunction IF…, THEN… can be stored in the lexicon exactly in the form of this syn-tactic subtree. Such a description had been tacitly accepted for almost half a century:

• In Mel’čuk 1974: 231, No. 31, (e), the surface-syntactic relation [SSyntRel] r between IF and THEN was called “1st auxiliary.”

• In Mel’čuk & Pertsov 1987: 331, No. 19.1, itwas rebaptized “binary-junctive.”

• In Iomdin 2010: 43, it appears under the nameof “correlative SSyntRel.”

• In Mel’čuk 2012a: 143, No. 51, it is “correlative-

auxiliary.”

However, this syntactic description of binary conjunctions contradicts the definition of sur-face-syntactic dependency (or, more precisely, that of surface-syntactic relation), which was advanced in Mel’čuk 1988: 130–144 and has been used as such since; see its newer formula-tions, for instance, in Mel’čuk 2009: 25–40 and Mel’čuk 2015b: 411–433. In order to lay bare this contradiction, only the first part of this definition—namdely Criterion A—is needed, strictly speaking. Nevertheless, to facilitate the task of the reader I will cite here the whole definition—that is, the full set of criteria for SSyntRels. (Of course many substantial expla-nations and interesting special cases have to be bypassed.)

Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2017), pages 127-134,Pisa, Italy, September 18-20 2017

127

2 Criteria for Surface-Syntactic

Dependencies (= Surface-Syntactic

Relations)

NB: Given the limitations of space and time, the

formulations below are approximate and

controversial cases are not considered; for

important details, see the above references.

Criterion A: PRESENCE of a syntactic depen-

dency between two lexemes in an utterance

(prosodic unity of and linear arrangement in the

configuration L1–synt–L2)

In a given utterance, the lexemes L1 and L2 can

have a direct Synt-dependency link (= they can

form a configuration L1–synt–L2), if and only if

both Conditions 1 and 2 are simultaneously

satisfied:

Condition 1 (a) General case

L1 and L2 can form a phrase of L, such as

N—V, V—N, ADJ—N, PREP—N, ADV—ADJ, etc. (b) Special case

L1 and L2 cannot form a phrase, but the lexemes

L1, L2 and configurations of lexemes of the set

{Li} appearing in the same utterance can, such

that the following are also phrases of L:

• L1→{Li-1} L2→{Li-2}

• L1→{Li-1} and L2→{Li-2}

Condition 2 The linear position of one of the lexemes L1 and

L2 in the utterance under consideration must be

specified with respect to the other.

Examples

Case (b) covers configurations of two types:

(i) L1→L(PREP)2→L(N){i-2}, as in oneL1 ofL2

themL{i-2}

Here, *one→of cannot be a phrase, while the utter-

ances of→them and one→of→them are phrases,

having of and one as their heads. Therefore, a

syntactic link between ONE and OF is allowed.

(ii) L1→{L{i-1}} L(CONJ)2→{L{i-2}}, as in

It←becameL1→{obvious}{Li-1} thatL2

→{he was

there}{Li-2}.1

1 For the surface-syntactic relations mentioned in this

paper, see Mel’čuk 2015c and 2016a.

Here, *became→that cannot be a phrase, while

became→obvious and that→{he was there} are

phrases, with became and that as their heads;

thus, BECOME and THAT can be considered

syntactically linked.

Condition 1 of Criterion A requires that, in

order to have a direct syntactic link in the given

utterance, two lexemes Lʹ and Lʹʹ could form a

phrase of the language.

Condition 2 of Criterion A requires that, in

order for two lexemes Lʹ and Lʹʹ to have a

direct syntactic link in the given utterance, one

of them must determine the linear position of

the other.

These conditions are logically independent:

—In He took in his knapsack a book full of

vowels [Keats], Condition 1 allows the adjective

FULL to depend on KNAPSACK (full knapsack is

a phrase of English), but Condition 2 does not.

—In I wish I was either in your arms, or that a

thunderbolt would strike me [Keats], Condition 2

allows the particle EITHER to depend on OR

(either has to precede the governor of or), but

Condition 1 does not.

Criteria B1-B3: DIRECTION of the syntactic de-

pendency between two lexemes in an utterance

Criterion B1 (passive syntactic valence2 of the

phrase L1–synt–L2)

In a phrase L1–synt–L2 the lexeme L1 is the

syntactic governor of L2, or the head of the

phrase L1–synt–L2, if L1 determines the passive

syntactic valence of the phrase to a greater

extent than L2.

Example

The passive valence of the phrase John—and—

Mary is that of a noun (it can be the subject and

the direct object of a verb, the object of a pre-

position, an apposition, etc.); the passive

valence of the phrase and—Mary is determined

by AND; therefore,

MARY–synt→AND–synt→JOHN.

This is actually the general schema for coor-

dinating conjunctions:

L1–synt→CONJ(coord)–synt→L2.

Criterion B2 (morphological contact point in the

phrase L1–synt–L2)

In a phrase L1–synt–L2, where both L1 and L2 have

the same syntactic properties (and influence the

2 Passive syntactic valence of an LU L is the set of all

possible syntactic governors of L.

pseudo-subjectival

128

passive valence of L1–synt–L2 to the same degree), the lexeme L1 is the syntactic governor of L2, or the head of the phrase L1–synt–L2, if L1 determines the morphological behavior of the phrase to a greater extent than L2.

Example

In the French phrase Bibliothèque Mitterand ‘Mitterand Library’ the head is BIBLIOTHÈQUE since the phrase imposes the agreement of the adjective in the feminine gender (the gender of BIBLIOTHÈQUE): La Bibliothèque Mitterand est spaci+euse(fem) ‘The Mitterand Library is spaci-ous’.

Criterion B3 (denotation of the phrase L1–synt–L2)

In a phrase L1–synt–L2, where both L1 and L2

have the same syntactic and morphological properties (and influence the passive valence and morphological behavior of L1–synt–L2 to the same degree), the lexeme L1 is the syntactic governor of L2, or the head of the phrase L1–synt–L2, if L1 determines the denotation of L1–synt–L2 to a greater extent than L2.

Example

The denotation of the phrase [the American] writer—Dos_Pasos is a real person (an Ame-rican writer having a particular name), not the name Dos_Pasos; therefore, we have

WRITER–synt→DOS_PASOS.

Criteria B1–B3 form a hierarchy:

B1 > B2 > B3

This means that if Criterion B1 is applicable, it determines the syntactic governor; otherwise, Criterion B2 is pressed into action, and if applicable, it determines the syntactic gover-nor; if it also fails, Criterion B3 is supposed to solve the problem.

Criteria C1-C3: TYPE of the syntactic depen-dency between two lexemes in an utterance

Criterion C1 (presence of semantic contrast: Mini-mal Pair test) Notation: wi(L) is a wordform of lexeme L. A hypothetical SSyntRel r should not describe two phrases

w1(L1)–r→w2(L2) and w3(L1)–r→w4(L2), if 1) they contrast semantically

[‘w1(L1)–r→w2(L2)’ ≠ ‘w3(L1)–r→w4(L2)’], and

2) they formally differ only by some syntact-ic means of expression—i.e., by word order, syntactic prosody, or syntactic grammemes. In such a case, r should be split into two dif-ferent SSyntRels, r1 and r2.

Example

Rus. žena–synt→druga ‘wife of.friend’ and žena–synt→drug ‘wife, who is a friend’ should be described by two different SSyntRels (actantial-

attributive and qualifying-appositive), since these phrases semantically contrast and formally differ only by the case of DRUG: the genitive in the first phrase and the same case as that of ŽENA in the second.

Criterion C2 (syntactic substitutability: Substitu-tion test)

A SSyntRel r must have a prototypical dependent that is allowable with any governor.

Example

have–synt→been and be–synt→going should be described by two different SSyntRels (perfect-

analytical and progressive-analytical) since there is no word-class whose element is possible as a dependent both with HAVE and BE within an analytical form.

Criterion C3 (no limited repeatability: Cooccur-rence test)

A SSyntRel r must be either unlimitedly re-peatable or non-repeatable—that is, it cannot be limitedly repeatable.

Example

write–synt→after the lunch, write–synt→on the next line, write–synt→over the door etc. can all be described by the same SSyntRel: circumstant-

ial, since the number of these dependents is the-oretically unlimited. On the contrary, [They]

returned–synt→all and [They] returned–synt→drunk require two different SSyntRels (floating-copredicative

and subject-copredicative), since otherwise the dependent will be repeatable exactly twice.

Now we are fully equipped to take on the problem formulated in Section 1: What is the dependency structure of a binary conjunction?

3 The Dependency Description for Binary Conjunctions

Consider the expression “IF Y, THEN X”:

—The expression *IF THEN is not a phrase of English; —IFL2 forms a phrase with the subordinate clause Y{Li-2}, and THENL1

, with the superord-inate clause X{Li-1}; —IFL2

subordinates the Main Verb of Y and is itself subordinated to the Main Verb

1 of X{Li-1}:

MV(X{Li-1})→IFL2→MV(Y{Li-2}),

129

thus corresponding to Case (b) of Condition 1 of Criterion A;

—THEN is subordinated to the Main Verb of X{Li-1}.

As a result, we have the following SSynt-structure for a subordinating binary conjunction (both of its components depend on the Main Verb of the superordinate clause):

IF→Y, THEN←X.

This proposal is aimed at correcting a mistake that has been being perpetrated for many years; it concerns all the binary conjunc-tions and a motley set of expressions similar to them.

4 Conjunctions: A Typology

A sketch of conjunction typology will give the discussion a certain depth:, it will make clear that the proposed solution is typologically plausible.

• According to their meaning/function, con-junctions are divided in two major families: subordinating vs. coordinating. These two fa-milies are very different in their properties and behavior—as different as two major opposed ways of syntactic linking: subordination and coordination.

• According to their form, conjunctions are classified along two independent axes:

—the number of components: single (just one component) vs. binary (two components) vs. repeated (theoretically unlimited repetition of the second component);

—the structure of components: simple (all components are monolexemic) vs. compound (at least one component is plurilexemic).

A binary or repeated conjunction is neces-sarily linearly discontinuous—its components cannot be in linear contact. (In a sentence like He is an either-or person we do not have a binary conjunction used as such, but its meta-linguistic name as a premodifier.)

Since repeated conjunctions can be only co-ordinating, there are 10 logically possible classes of conjunctions, see Table 1 below. (Since there are no English examples for Class 10, Russian conjunctions are supplied; raised semi-brackets ˹ ˺ enclose idioms.)

5 Binary Conjunctions in English

Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of English binary conjunctions. Subordinating

IF…, (THEN)…

˹NO SOONER…, THAN2…˺

˹THE3…, THE2…˺

Coordinating

˹BOTH… AND…˺

˹EITHER… OR…˺

˹NEITHER… NOR…˺

NOT ONLY…, BUT ALSO…

NOT SO MUCH…, AS…

The first component of a coordinating binary conjunction and the second component of a subordinating binary conjunction are them-selves not conjunctions, but, respectively, adjectives or particles, which depend on an element in the corresponding clause—via the modificative, the auxiliary

or the restrictive SSyntRel (according to the conjunction).

simple compound

simple conjunctions compound conjunctions

subordinating coordinating subordinating coordinating

single

1 IF, WHEN,

ALTHOUGH

2 AND, OR, BUT

3 ˹AS SOON AS˺

4 ˹AS WELL AS˺, ˹LET ALONE˺

binary

5

IF…, (THEN)… ˹THE…, THE…˺

6

˹BOTH… AND…˺, ˹EITHER… OR…˺,

˹NEITHER… NOR…˺

7 ˹NO SOONER…, THAN2…˺

8 NOT SO MUCH…, AS…

NOT ONLY…, BUT ALSO…

repeated ———

9 ˹EITHER…, OR…, OR…, OR…˺

˹NEITHER…, NOR…, NOR…, NOR…˺

——— 10

Rus. ˹TO LI…, TO LI…, TO LI…˺ ‘whether…, or…, or…’

Table 1: Classes of conjunctions

130

circumstantial auxiliary

subord-conjunct comparative

r

The following three examples will be helpful.

˹NO SOONER – THAN2˺: deep binary subordinating conjunction, consist-ing of the surface subordinating conjunction ˹NO SOONER˺ and the particle THAN2 (THAN1 is a comparative conjunction).

(2) No←sooner→had I arrived than the kids rushed

towards me.

˹THE3 – THE2˺: deep binary subordinating conjunction, consisting of the surface subordinating conjunction THE3 and the particle THE2 (THE1 is the definite article).

(3) a.

The higher you climb the←auxil–colder it←gets.

The surface-syntactic structure [SSyntS] for

a synonymous sentence with a different order-ing of the superordinate and subordinate clauses is almost the same as the SSyntS for sentence (3a), but with THE2 omitted:

b. It←gets→colder the higher you climb.

˹EITHER – OR˺: deep binary coordinating conjunction, consist-ing of the surface coordinating conjunction OR

and the particle EITHER.

(4) I’ll have either←auxiliary–tacos–coord→or–[a]– –coord-conjunctional→pizza.

6 Phraseological Nature of Binary Conjunctions

A binary conjunction is a plurilexemic expres-sion that is not free: it is a phraseme (Mel’čuk 2015b: 263–362). However, it is quite an un-common phraseme: its components are not directly syntactically linked. Such syntactically discontinuous phrasemes have not been consid-ered before. Indeed, a phraseme is “a phrase that…,” while IF – THEN or EITHER – OR are obviously not phrases. Therefore, one has to consider ta binary conjunction together with the lexical expressions (in this case, clauses) that implement its actants: IF Y, THEN X and EITHER Y OR X are bona fide phrases. It is under this form that they must be stored in the lexicon. (For more on the semantic, deep-syntactic and surface-syntactic representation of binary conjunctions, see Section 8.)

But if binary conjunctions are phrasemes, what type of phraseme are they?

Five of the English binary conjunctions—˹NO

SOONER Y, THAN2 Х˺; ˹THE3 Y, THE2 Х˺; ˹BOTH X

AND Y˺; ˹EITHER X OR Y˺ and ˹NEITHER X NOR Y˺ —are idioms: they are non-compositional.

The conjunctions NOT SO MUCH X, AS Y and

NOT ONLY X, BUT ALSO Y are formulemes (a subtype of cliché; Mel’čuk 2015a)—composi-tional, but completely fixed expressions.

And the binary conjunction IF Y, THEN X is a collocation, although of an unusual type: there is no direct syntactic link between the base and the collocate. In this collocation, the base is the first component (IF), which controls the use of the second component (the collocate THEN); the latter can be optional, must follow the base and occupies the initial linear position in the

superordinate clause.

Binary conjunctions are characterized by syntactic discontinuity: they form phrases only together with their actants, since their own components are syntactically not directly linked

to each other. In this, they are unlike almost all other phrasemes. However, they share this feature with a few idioms, which it seems worthwhile to quote here:

˹NOTHING→IF NOT←X(ADJ)˺ ≈ ‘extremely’: Barbara was nothing if not feminine.

Rus. ˹PRI VSËM←X-e˺ ‘despite X’ (Apresjan 2014): pri vsëm ego talante ‘despite [lit. ‘with all’] his talent’

Rus. ˹TO LI EŠČË←X(V)˺ ‘I signal that X(V) will take place, TO referring to something very bad’: To li ty togda eščë uvidiš´! ‘I signal that what you will then see will be very bad’ [lit. ‘That whether you then still will.see!’].

Fr. ˹EN TOUT←X(N)˺ ‘while being completely ADJ(X)’:

Je te le dis en toute amitié ‘I tell you this being completely [your] friend [lit. ‘in all friendship’]’.

7 An Illustration: Russian Binary Conjunctions KAK…, TAK I… lit. ‘as…, so also…’

To demonstrate my proposal in action, I will offer here the lexicographic descriptions—that is, lexical entries—for two Russian binary compound conjunctions:

comparative subord-conjunct

131

ČITAT´ ‘read’

KNIGAPL ‘books’

ANGLIJSKIJ ‘English’

FRANCUZSKIJ ‘French’

I ‘also’

TAK ‘so’

ON ‘he’

KAK ‘as’ auxiliary

subjectival dir-objectival

restrictive

coord-conjunctional

coordinative

modificative

SIDET´ lit. ‘sit’

NAD ‘over’

STAT´JASG‘paper’

ON ‘he’

subjectival oblique-objectival

prepositional

KAK ‘as’

subord-conjunctional

ZASNUT´ ‘fall asleep’

ON ‘he’

subjectival circumstantial

I ‘also’ TAK

‘so’

auxiliary restr

the coordinating ˹KAK X, TAK I Y˺1 ≈ ‘both X and Y’, see (5), and the subordinating ˹KAK Y, TAK (I) X˺2 ≈ ‘as Y, X’, see (6).

First, two illustrative sentences and their surface-syntactic structures. (5) Russian On čitaet kak anglijskie, tak i francuzskie knigi. he reads as English so also French books ‘He reads both English and French books’.

Figure 1: Surface-Syntactic Structure of Sentence (5)

In (5), KAK ‘as’ is not a conjunction, but a particle depending on the following adjective. Similarly, I is a particle meaning ‘also’, homo-nymous with the coordinating conjunction I ‘and’. But TAK ‘so’ appears here as a coordinat-ing conjunction (anglijskie–coord→tak–(i)–coord-

conjunct→francuzskie by analo-gy with anglijskie–coord→i–coord-conjunct→francuzskie).

(6) Russian

Kak sidel on nad stat´ëj, tak on i zasnul. as worked he on paper so he also fell.asleep ‘As he was.working on [his] paper, he fell asleep’.

The double-headed dashed arrow indicates core-ference; it is part of the referential structure, one of the four structures composing the surface-syntactic representation of a sentence.

Figure 2: Surface-Syntactic Structure of Sentence (6)

In (6), TAK ‘so’ is not a manner adverb, but a component of the second part of a binary com-pound conjunction; it is semantically empty and is positioned always at the beginning of the su-perordinate clause. This is why it needs a special auxiliary SSyntRel. It links the second component of some binary subordinating con-junctions to the head of the superordinate clause, cf. (2).

The conjunctions ˹KAK X TAK I Y˺1 and ˹KAK

Y, TAK I X˺2 are: • homonymous and belong to two different

vocables; • idioms, since their meanings are by no means

compositional; • syntactically discontinuous in that *kak tak i is

not a phrase of Russian: only kak X, tak i Y is a phrase.

Here are the lexical entries of both Russian binary compound conjunctions. (For the orga-nization of a lexical entry of the Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary—a special lexicon of the Meaning-Text approach, see, among others, Mel’čuk 2013: Ch. 11.)

˹KAK X, TAK I Y˺1 ≈ ‘both X and Y’: idiom, deep binary compound coordinating conjunction (Sannikov 2008: 302–303); written language.

Definition ˹kak X, tak i Y˺1: ‘i X, i Y’ [lit. ‘as X, so also Y’] Government Pattern

X I Y II 1. L 1. L (“L” stands for ‘lexeme’3)

1) L ≠ ?ADJ(short), ?PREDICATIVE

(Sannikov 2008: 303) ?On byl kak bolen, tak i goloden ‘He was both sick and hungry’ (bolen and goloden are short adjectives). Surface-Syntactic Structure

KAK←auxil–Y–coord→TAK–coord-conjunct→X–restr→I

Lexical Functions

Syn : i X, i Y ≈ ‘both X and Y’ Anti : ni X, ni Y ≈ ‘neither X nor Y’

Examples V ètoj proporcii izmenjaetsja kak cena, tak, razumeetsja, i bogatstvo lit. ‘In this proportion changes as price, so, of course, also wealth’. Tam vy smožete kak vinogradnogo soka vypit´, tak i černiki poest´ lit. ‘There you will.be.able as grape juice drink, so also blackberries eat’.

3 Thus, X and Y cannot be expressed by clauses.

132

circumstantial

˹NO SOONER THAN2˺

L(‘X’)

L(‘Y’)

II

ATTR

NO_SOONER

L(‘X’)

circumstantial

L(‘Y’)

subord-conjunctional

THAN2

auxiliary

L(‘X’)

L(‘Y’)

II

ATTR

IF

L(‘X’)

circumstantial

L(‘Y’)

coord-conjunctional

THENATTR THEN

auxiliary

Ja kak sebe takogo ne pozvoljal, tak i ne poz-voljaju lit. ‘I as to.myself such.things didn’t allow, so also don’t allow’ = ‘As I didn’t allow this to myself before, so I do not now’. Oba filosofa izučali kak fiziku, tak i kosmo-logiju lit. ‘Both philosophers studied as physics, so also cosmology’.

˹KAK Y, TAK (I) X˺2 ≈ ‘as Y, X’: idiom, deep binary compound subordinating conjunction; colloquial style.

Definition

˹kak Y, tak i X˺2: ‘immediately at/since the moment of Y, X’

[lit. ‘as Y, so also X’]

Government Pattern

X I Y II 1. CLAUSE 1. CLAUSE

Surface-Syntactic Structure

KAK–subord-conjunctional→Y TAK←auxil–X–restr→I

Linear Order

1. The particle TAK is initial in the superor-dinate clause.

2. The subordinate clause introduced by KAK precedes the superordinate clause.

3. The conjunction KAK is not necessarily initial in the subordinate clause, but it neces-sarily precedes its Main Verb.

4. If the particle I is omitted, there must be at least one full lexeme between TAK and the Main Verb of the superordinate clause.

Examples Kak pervyj raz sxodil ja v ataku, tak ot very i otpal lit. ‘As first time went I in attack, so from faith [I] also fell.away’ = ‘After my first attack I lost my faith’.

Kak on rodilsja v Armavire, tak tam i vyros lit. ‘As he was.born in Armavir, so there [he] also grew.up’.

Èta dama kak podnjala ruku “za”, tak i ne opustila eë, kogda golosovali “protiv” lit. ‘This lady as rose hand for, so [she] also didn’t lower it when [people] were voting against’.

Kak budeš´ s nej govorit´, tak vsë (i) pojmëš´ lit. ‘As [you] will with her talk, so everything [you] also will.understand’.

8 Deep-Syntactic Rules for Binary Conjunctions

Finally I would like to illustrate the Sem-rules and DSynt-rules that ensure the treatment of a binary conjunction. Two examples will be given: for a binary conjunction that is an idiom (˹NO SOONER Y, THAN2 X˺) and for one that is a collocation (IF Y, THEN X).

Example 1 Sem-structure

‘X←1–no_sooner_than2–2→Y’

DSynt-structure SSynt-structure

Shading indicates the context: that part of the rule that is not manipulated by it but whose presence is necessary for the rule to apply. L(‘X’) stands for «lexical expression L of meaning ‘X’».

The correspondence between these two struc-tures constitutes a DSynt-rule for the binary com-pound conjunction ˹NO SOONER Y, THAN2 X˺. In other words, this rule, as as part of its lexical entry, is exploited during the transition from the deep-syntactic structure of a sentence with this conjunction to its surface-syntactic structure.

A binary conjunction that is an idiom exists as such only in the DSynt-structure, where it appears on one node. This reflects its semantic unity.

Example 2 Sem-structure

‘X←1–if_then–2→Y’

DSynt-structure SSynt-structure

133

9 Conclusions

1. A dependency syntactic structure is propos-ed for binary conjunctions, both subordinating and coordinating.

2. A universal typology of conjunctions is sketched, and three examples are given of English binary conjunctions.

3. Binary conjunctions are “discontinuous” phrasemes—phrasemes that have to be consi-dered together with their actants.

4. The full lexical entries are presented for two Russian binary compound conjunctions: the coordinating ˹KAK X, TAK I Y˺1 ≈ ‘both X and Y’ and the subordinating ˹KAK Y, TAK (I) X˺2 ≈ ‘as Y, X’.

5. Two sample DSynt-rules for introducing a binary conjunction into the SSynt-subtree are presented for the binary conjunctions ˹NO

SOONER Y, THAN2 X˺ and IF Y, THEN X.

Acknowledgments

My most heartfelt thanks go to Margarita Alon-so Ramos, David Beck, Lidija Iordanskaja, Sébastien Marengo and Jasmina Milićević, who read the preliminary versions of this text. Thanks as well to the three anonymous review-ers for Depling-2017.

References

Valentina Apresjan. 2014. Syntactic Idioms across Languages: Corpus Evidence from Russian and English. Russian Linguistics, 38: 2, 187–203.

Leonid Iomdin. 2010. Sintaksičeskie otnošenija [Syntactic Relations]. In: Apresjan, Ju., Bogus-lavskij, I., Iomdin, L., Sannikov, V., Teoreti-českie problemy russkogo sintaksisa: vzaimodej-stvie grammatiki i slovarja, Moskvа: Jazyki sla-vjanskix kul´tur, 21–43.

Igor Mel’čuk. 1974. Opyt teorii lingvističeskix mo-delej «Smysl �Tekst». Semantika, sintaksis [Outline of a Theory of Linguistic Meaning-Text Models. Semantics, Syntax]. Moskva: Nauka.

Igor Mel’čuk. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

Igor Mel’čuk. 2009. Dependency in Natural Language. In: Polguère & Mel’čuk (eds) 2009: 1–110.

Igor Mel’čuk. 2012a. Jazyk: ot smysla k tekstu [Language: from Meaning to Text]. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul´tury.

Igor Mel’čuk. 2012b. Semantics: From Meaning to Text. [Vol. 1.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Igor Mel’čuk. 2013. Semantics: From Meaning to Text. Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben-jamins.

Igor Mel’čuk. 2015a. Clichés, an Understudied Subclass of Phrasemes. Yearbook of Phraseo-logy, 6: 55–86.

Igor Mel’čuk. 2015b. Semantics: From Meaning to Text. Vol. 3, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben-jamins.

Igor Mel’čuk. 2015c. A General Inventory of Sur-face-Syntactic Relations in World Languages. Part One. Moscow Linguistic Journal, 17: 2, 75–103.

Igor Mel’čuk. 2016a. A General Inventory of Sur-face-Syntactic Relations in World Languages. Part Two. Moscow Linguistic Journal, 18: 1, 94-120.

Igor Mel’čuk. 2016b. Language: From Meaning to Text. Moskva/Boston: Academic Studies Press.

Igor Mel’čuk. 2017. KAK …, TAK I …: čto èto za? [KAK…, TAK I…: What Kind of Stuff is It?]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osvesčenii, No. 1 (33), 67–85.

Igor Mel’čuk and Nikolaj Pertsov. 1987. Surface Syntax of English. A Formal Model within the Meaning-Text Framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Alain Polguère and Igor Mel’čuk (Eds.) 2009. De-pendency in Linguistic Description. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Randolph Quirk, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartvik. 1991. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London/ New York: Longman.

Vladimir Sannikov. 2008. Russkij sintaksis v se-mantiko-pragmatičeskom prostranstve [Russian Syntax in Semantic-Pragmatic Space]. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskix kul´tur.

134